Skip to main content

About this Show





San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel 89 (615 MHz)






San Francisco 4, Mr. Duffy 2, Hwang 2, Hurtado 2, Karin Mondiborda C 1, Valleyed 1, Suitbility 1, Ada 1, Lazarus 1, Michael Rice 1, The City 1, Us 1, California 1, Wiener 1, Weiner 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV2    [untitled]  

    November 14, 2012
    5:30 - 6:00pm PST  

>> thank you. anything from the departments? mr. duffy? it looks like you are standing up first? >> good evening commissioners, nothing apart from what you have heard, the roof deck issue and the wall that is separating the garage are from the hallway and a new hallway that has been filed, thankfully and that will make it a legal exit, which is better than what they were... i think that they were going to sprinkle the garage or something like that. we did find that there should have been a wall there whether it was taken out by the previous owners or the new owners it is going to be put back and i think that they are quite willing to do it. i didn't have to fight them to get it done they signed the permit themselves and if any of the commissioners have any questions on the case? >> mr. duffy. i think that it is appropriate
that we review the procedures upon which further review by your department with respect to either the agenda that is submitted and issued, following the approval of the site permit. specifically, in respect to whether the roof deck was originally granted or not granted. the addition of a corridor wall, additional lights, i presume that you can could then discuss what types of reviews the department still has to do. >> you are right about that commissioner, i actually have that written down here. addendum need to be reviewed. and it has not reached there but the drawings have not been submitted for that, we have only approved the site permit. we should be looking at all of the exiting issues and i am
sure that if he is going anywhere soon, he is going to keep us on our toes on that and so we are expecting that, i already had that discussion with him this morning, prior to the hearing, he brought up something there, but a second means of egress from a third level that is the first that i heard that have and the discreptcy on the plans. i think that all of those issues will be sorted out at the addendum stage, process. thank you. >> thank you, good evening, president hwang. the project remains compliance and we see no reason to grant the rehearing request. i am available for any questions. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> just a point of
clarification, i believe that i made a more general statement at the hearing with respect to this project that i felt it was in general co-compliant, i don't think that i have made a specific statement, if i did i try not to. with respect to exiting from the garage. the issues is the over all entitlement that we upheld with the site permit verses the individual items that are predominantly of a technical nature, which i believe that the department needs to resolve and has the duty to resolve. at this point i do not see any new information with respect to the over all entitlements that we upheld last time. >> i would just guess ask a question, the fact that there were new permit applications in
the last few days would not be germane, it is a hearing on a permit as opposed to additional permits. >> those are appealable also. >> separate. thank you. >> i have nothing to add. >> do i have a motion? >> i will move to deny the rehearing request. >> okay. >> we have a motion from the vice president, to deny the rehearing request. both rehearing request. on that motion, president hwang? >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado is absent. >> commissioner lazarus? >> aye. the vote is 3-0. the hearing is denied and the notices shall be released.
thank you. >> all right so we are going to call the next item which is appeal 12-128. we are not going to start the hearing on that until commissioner hurtado is here. she should be here shortly. we will take a two-minute break. okay. >> thank you.
the city of san francisco sfgtv meeting of the san francisco county board of appeals occurring november 14, 2012 will begin shortly. the city of
san francisco sfgtv meeting of the san francisco county board of appeals occurring november 14, 2012 will begin shortly. >> we are back to the november 14th, board of the appeals. we are calling item number 5, appeal number 1 2-128. glikshtern verses the department of building inspection, at 70th elk street. protesting the issue ans on september 28, 2012 to recreation and park department
to alter a building to make ada accessible. path of travel, rest rooms doors, drinking fountain and mechanical work to the site and rest rooms and drinking fountain including the concrete slab in the rest rooms this is on site for tonight and we will start with the appellant who has 7 minutes to present her case. >> >> my name is glikshtern and i am not objecting to the work to the building, what i am objecting on is the trees and the work on the hill and i filed this appeal because so many people that are against this part of the project. was actually is doing is it is killing glen park and destroying while life habitat. the permit says that they have
the exemption because the work will not be done in the areas but on the... and it is totally untrue. the removal of the trees which are under the construction must not be attached to the center project at all. this project will be wasting tax payer money on building a new entrance, and the hills and trees and planting native gardens instead of using this money to work on the recreation center filled with the play grounds and playing hills. it was a half a million, ad promotes. the process did not actually consume the neighbor's information was withheld from the community. in the information provided was... and will be doing the
presentation. >> so, i am also a park user and i would like to say thank you for hearing the appeal and considering our concerns. it is absolutely not correct that spending a half million dollars for a repeated community workshops replaces the compliance with the environmental control regulations. the workshops are more about marketing a product, rather than the project so that they can make sound decisions. if you look at the certificate of determination, it is specifically says that there is no work in the natural areas, and that there is work on the hillside. there was a quick e-mail that was sent after we filed the appeal saying that well that was not going to change their determination from the department of planning but that is not a valid, evaluation that
would go to the departments to come to that certificate of determination. so, regular citizens and others have to comply with the environmental control regulations and so too should the city. so i have to say, ask yourself, where is the proof that they have complied with the regulations. the hillside removal and the tree removals with all of the other projects will impact air quality and impact the carbon and wild life, and it will help to impact historic resources, property values, and deserves compliance with the state regulations. there is no question that the hillsides and what is on the hillside is scenic and that the removal will dramatically change the neighborhood of glen canyon. there is also no question that
those eucalptisc on the hillside are healthy and mature and low removal is not see quental for determination. our own arborists evaluated those trees and they are in great condition and low-risk. >> it is absolutely not correct that the workshop demonstrated community consensus on removing the trees or even that the community supports the rec and park design. the fact is that the tree removals are an ongoing community concern with some people no and against the tree removals. when sfforest had a meeting about the tree removals in october of this year it was attended by about 100 people withstanding room only. few people had any idea of what is going on with the project.
also, about 3,000 people signed a petition, asking to save glen canyon trees and to revise the plan. people even valleyed on the street corners in the rain asking rpd to revise the plan and rpd has yet to meet with the public to explain the poor suitbility criteria that is being used for removing the trees. so, it is absolutely correct what rpd is saying as far as the 44 trees, in the natural areas, but they are not related to the construction. rec and park tacked those trees on long after the last community meeting and the trees are going to be replaced with about 2,000 native plants. but at best is the appearance that they are influencing the controversial and unapproved natural areas program with
using rec center funds. even if one agrees with removing these trees, the removal belong with the forestry project and not hijacking the funds for the recreation facility. none of these trees, except for emergency removals are exempt from the environmental review. trees are considered the lungs of the city and are being stripped bit by bit. as of october first, three currently funded projects will remove 150 trees, which is down from the original 280, but one would expect more coming later. poor suitbility is not hazardous. the rec and parks assessment for glen canyon only identified one, high risk tree for removal with the renovation project. it is the other assessment
called for the suitbility that is removing the remainder of the trees. so, we respectfully request that the board of appeals revoke the building permit for any work on the hillside. there isn't conclusive proof of compliance with the state and environmental regulations for any such work in the hillside. once the 130--year-old trees are gone, they are gone forever, along with much of the loved character of glen canyon park. thank you. >> okay. we are hearing from the department, now. rec and parks? >>
>> hello, i am karin mondiborda c, i am the deputy director and the project manager for the glen park project and i am pleased to be here to have the opportunity to respond to this appeal and provide information on this important project. >> glen canyon park is an extremely special and diverse environment with the mix of natural amendties and others. >> the challenge that the public has before them with any, capital project is to balance those.
it is a very large park, 67 acres. the renovation is focused at the southern end of the park and i want to show you that the yellow zone that is indicated there and this permit is only addressing that area of the park. the renovation project is focused on the southern end, and closest to the center, the most active portion of the park, which is where the well-used and well-loved ball fields, rec center, including the gym, playground and two tennis courts and provide active opportunities for the public. the project which is funded for the 2008 clean and safe neighbor parks bond would provide a much-needed improvement to the park. here is some images of the different facilities all of which are very out of date and in poor condition. the project will provide much-needed improvement to the park including a larger children's play area, new tennis courts and improved
paths and entrance, new landscaping and heating and the recreation center. rest room improvements and improvements to the rec center. most importantly it will finally improve the features in order to comply with the disability access laws including the requirements of american disability's act. as stated in the appeal, the appellant's main concerns are the advocacy of the act and the tree removal and replanting of the project and the adequatecy of the project. and i would like to talk about each of those. as we stated in our response, these items are not before the board which they are not germane to the business. all of these have been addressed adequately and serve in the public interests. so here i have provided for your reference, sort of the
overview of the permits that were submitted to your department and i have a copy of that as well. that i can provide to the commission. the appellants have addressed concern that the exemption received on this project is not adequate. that is the california environmental requirement. as in 2013, a copy of the findings and an e-mail from the planning department staff. the analysis includes both analysis of the tree removele and replanting and the discussion of the significant natural areas management plan which is separate from this project and under going environmental review. this is a capital project funded by the 2008 bond. tree removal is a sensitive matter and also very important one, we take our responsibility very seriously. as provided in the brief, exhibit 7 and 8 and the recommendations of the arborist report, recommending them to removal and other measures, we
have included a map of the locations where the trees will be removed and the new 163 trees to be planted. also included are a diagrams that were on the project website, commission meetings, identifying those trees to be impacted by the tennis court relocation that was something discussed in many of the meetings. exhibit 10 includes a letter from supervisor wiener and as you can see this letter was delivered to 1500 households and posted on-line. as noted on the post, included in your packet. two trees recently fell and fortunately no one was hurt. we have less fortunate incidents in other parts of the city. finally this project has undergone a long and extensive community process. starting in december of 2010
and continuing through this year. as further reinforced by letters from michael rice and the president of the glen park neighborhood association, and supervisor weiner and the trust for public land and other members. this is a long process with over 12 community meetings, website information, on-line surveys, e-mails displays at the local public library, articles in local newspapers and more and there are a lot of needs in this park, the out reach was essential to develop and identify the top priority and weigh the option and develop the best plan to move forward among the options. as you can see from the materials submitted in your brief we evaluated numerous locations for the tennis courts and the playground and all of those were discussed. does this plan meet each of the plans? no. is it the best plan to accomplish most of the goals? >> yes.
this project delivers a larger playground and new tennis courts replacing those that are there now and a new ada rest room that will be open when the rec is closed. the improvement plan also identified high priority features, which were not enough to... not able to be afforded with the 2008 bond budget. such as the renovation of the rec center, it was included in the 2012 bond improved by an overwhelming vote of the people last week and in this district as well which voted a higher percentage than the rest of the city. showing support for the planned park renovations and the planned developed through the community process. delaying this project is not in the public interest. this addresses many needs, most important are the needs for ada access and tree health and playground. the community has waited for these improvements these questions are not germane to
this permit and we ask that you deny the appeal. thank you. >> can you for the record indicate how many trees are being removed as part of this? >> yes, 58. >> two of the 58 recently fell of their own accord partially a couple of weeks ago, but we still need to remove the remaining stumps. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you. actually before you sit down, could you address the location of projected proposed tree removal? s >> absolutely. so. let me go back. so here this diagram, the red dots are the tree removals and the green dots are the new tree
plantings. i can also direct you to the exhibit. >> if you could address the concern that the removals are located in the area that are not part of the subject of the seqa? >> the tree removals are surrounding the project, and those were all considered within the environmental review. the e-mail submitted, which i provided, i think, it is... turnover here, to 13. within exhibit 12, the planning department reviewed the trees planned for removal. discussed the number of removals up to 61 and in the end we are removing 58. and then, they clarified in an e-mail which is exhibit